Page 46 of 58 FirstFirst ... 36444546474856 ... LastLast
Results 1,351 to 1,380 of 1726

Thread: I Will Prove The Moon Landings Were Hoaxed

  1. #1351
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift
    You know, if you think about it, the fact that there were unsuccessful attempts almost is proof of the landings. If it was being filmed on a movie set, they could have just yelled "cut" and tried again, though they probably wouldn't have had to, since the camera man was just standing there 10 feet away and could have panned up (the time delay being zero seconds).
    That's just what THEY want you to think!

  2. #1352
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    81
    Hi all. I'm not at all that knowledgeable as most of you guys/girls are regarding the moon landing, but I do have an anecdote relating to wayneee's question below.

    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.


    In my 3rd year at the University we were assigned to design a functionally but scaled satellite. The challenge was to build a commercial platform i.e. only the most basic functions:

    Power supply solar panels, power board and charging board [batteries].
    Thermal control passive, as in geometry, controlled heat flow from exposed to covered surfaces [and in reverse] by insulation and conduction, the painting, active control as in heating resistors.
    Mechanical Design The satellite was submitted to a "crash test" i.e. drop it from 1.5m [angled on a ramp] and see what survives. I'll be back to this later....
    Data collection mostly voltage/current and temperature sensors.
    Control A microprocessor to control the subsystems.
    Telemetry This was managed by a simple rs232 connection connected to a pc collecting data.

    To test the satellite, it was to survive in a solar chamber [simulating conditions in space in regard of vacuum and radiation] for 24 hours, thus exposing the satellite to equal amount of eclipse and shadow. This was to simulate 1 orbit around earth. Furthermore, the kind people at IRF [Institute for Space Physics] owning the chamber, put their own temp sensors on the satellite for reference.

    Some Preconditions
    In order to determine the satellites thermal behaviour, we had to simulate our specific design in Simulink. This was offcource an iterative process changing the design along the way. The output of the simulation [based on math, physics and control systems design only] was a graph predicting the internal [2 sensors at the front and back] and external [two sensors, at the back of the solar panels and back of the body] temperature on the satellite vs time.

    The Test
    We put our satellite inside the chamber and the IRF staff started up the chamber. The telemetry was working as expected, so we just waited for the test to end [I'm resonable sure though, that the IRF staff got kinda bored with us, constantly asking if everything was fine with the chamber ]

    The Result
    After the test we retrieved the data collected by our "ground station" consisting of telemetry from the satellite and reference temperatures from the chamber. One of the primary objectives was to compare the satellite temperature sensors with the reference sensors and the simulated Simulink data.

    Actually, at this point I would have been happy if the satellite and reference sensors matched. But the result was in my view amazing. The satellite, reference and Simulink data all matched......perfectly.

    Conclusion
    The satellite temperature was ranging between 5-40 degrees, not a perfect condition for a manned spaceflight, but that was not the point of our exercise. The point was to create a controlled temperature environment in space. And that we did! No atmosphere, nothing fancy, just a couple of students fooling around with some maths, physics, simulation software and basic engineering skills.

    Just remembered, the crash test... This was our only drawback. The test damaged two solar cells and offset the solar panel But regardles, the satellite survived


    Regards / Arena

  3. #1353
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Crum
    That's just what THEY want you to think!
    Quite right, if the missions had been perfect than that would have proved it was a hoax because nothing is perfect. So the fact that they weren't perfect proves there was a hoax because it shows they were trying to trick us into thinking it wasn't perfect.

  4. #1354
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Count Zero
    It amply illustrates the sorts of people and personality types who worked on the space program in the '60s. Read the whole interview, then imagine some Nixon goon coming up to him and saying, "Nice try, but we want you to fake it instead." I daresay the response would make Buzz vs. Bart look tame by comparison!
    Yes - I have often wondered what would have happened if an HB approached Gene Krantz...

  5. #1355
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Arena
    In my 3rd year at the University we were assigned to design a functionally but scaled satellite. The challenge was to build a commercial platform i.e. only the most basic functions:
    Wow - that sounds like an awesome assignment!

  6. #1356
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat
    Quite right, if the missions had been perfect than that would have proved it was a hoax because nothing is perfect. So the fact that they weren't perfect proves there was a hoax because it shows they were trying to trick us into thinking it wasn't perfect.
    Um, yes. I think. No, wait. No. Um, um.

    That's just MEAN!

  7. #1357
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,327
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat
    Quite right, if the missions had been perfect than that would have proved it was a hoax because nothing is perfect. So the fact that they weren't perfect proves there was a hoax because it shows they were trying to trick us into thinking it wasn't perfect.
    Noooo! My brain! It's breaking up. It's bre...a...k...


    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  8. #1358
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    81
    Yes, It was!

    One of the most memorable things I've done. Partly beacuse it worked, but also due to the fact that it was awsome

  9. #1359
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    4,559

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by AGN Fuel
    Yes - I have often wondered what would have happened if an HB approached Gene Krantz...
    Um ...

    You Mean, Ex-Fighter Pilot, Gene Kranz?

    Something Tells me, he'd Break his F-86 Sabre, Out of Retirement, And Just STRAFE, The Lot Of them!!!


  10. #1360
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,038
    I'm sorry, I have got to share this:

    Over at the ApolloHoax BB, Moon Man has declared the lunar liftoff videos fake because the ascent stage "...takes off like a rocket."
    Last edited by Count Zero; 2005-Nov-15 at 04:50 AM.

  11. #1361
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    264
    Wow, gone for a day and you guys have put the hammer down on me. First let me concede and answer.
    First , I am not Moon Man
    Second , I did just throw up some stuff from another web site to see how you would react to it
    Third , PURE OXYGEN ,

  12. #1362
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    Wow, gone for a day and you guys have put the hammer down on me. First let me concede and answer.
    First , I am not Moon Man
    OK.

    Second , I did just throw up some stuff from another web site to see how you would react to it
    Uh-huh. Trolling with old, debunked claims. Gotcha.

    Third , PURE OXYGEN ,
    Yes?

  13. #1363
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    Wow, gone for a day and you guys have put the hammer down on me. First let me concede and answer.
    First , I am not Moon Man
    All right, I can buy that. It's just that it's been a long time between HB's and to get 2 in a week.... (maybe it's like London buses!)

    Second , I did just throw up some stuff from another web site to see how you would react to it
    How did you react the last time you trod in dog poo?

    Third , PURE OXYGEN ,
    WHAT ABOUT IT?

  14. #1364
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    264
    Shoot my edited post didnt come up , damn

  15. #1365
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,727
    Just before continuing with this thread, the next time Moon Man, Wayneee or anyone else claim that something is 'impossible' simply because they think it so, they heed the words of Werner von Braun himself:

    "I have learned to use the word 'impossible' with the greatest caution."

  16. #1366
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    264
    Ugh it was a lonng post I cant rewrite it now , it was good too , I gave you all credit for debunking the hoaxer stuff I posted . My wife was hand feeding some Kittens as I was typing and I spilled some formula on the key board, prrematurly posting. Anyways I was indeed wrong and rash about Pure Oxygen , although it is not good for you when you dont need it.
    I will sum up my wonderful and lost post.
    You have succesfully debunked the Hoaxer evidence and yet your evidence only makes Apollo possible . The Science is good and Empirical, and yet it does not prove that Apollo actualy happened. The Debunkers are right on one thing, there is not too much that could not be faked. If it's possible to recreate theatricly then there is a possibility that Apollo did not actualy happen. The burden of proof is upon the debunkers.
    True concrete evidence would be to see the Apollo Junk left behind , I know why its immpossible to see with a telescope . But supposedly Japan is sending a probe to map the moon down to a centimeter. Does anyone else know about this

    Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

  17. #1367
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    You have succesfully debunked the Hoaxer evidence and yet your evidence only makes Apollo possible . The Science is good and Empirical, and yet it does not prove that Apollo actualy happened. The Debunkers are right on one thing, there is not too much that could not be faked. If it's possible to recreate theatricly then there is a possibility that Apollo did not actualy happen. The burden of proof is upon the debunkers.
    I have shown why it could not have been faked in this post. Please read my post and explain how what I said is wrong before you claim all, or most of it, could have been faked. Even if it could have been faked, as I said in that post it would have involved building a complete working spacecraft that could have done the Apollo missions successfully, launching it, and then spending huge amounts of money on top of that to do a hoax as well. It is completely illogical to do the hoax when it is more difficult, more expensive, and riskier to do the hoax than to do the real thing.

  18. #1368
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    True concrete evidence would be to see the Apollo Junk left behind , I know why its immpossible to see with a telescope . But supposedly Japan is sending a probe to map the moon down to a centimeter. Does anyone else know about this

    Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
    HBer's will find that there are too many pixels in the photos for them to be real.

    Some people wouldn't be happy if you hung 'em with a new rope.

  19. #1369
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    The Debunkers are right on one thing, there is not too much that could not be faked. If it's possible to recreate theatricly then there is a possibility that Apollo did not actualy happen.
    Except that it is not fakeable. Even with modern CGI you'd be hard pressed to fake it theatrically. With 1960's tech you simply could not simulate the low gravity of the moon (and no gravity from some of the capsule feed..the vomit comet free-fall doesn't last long enough).

    Look at the most technically proficient movies from that era. 2001, for example, they come up short. Big time.

    Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
    We got extraordinary evidence, as well as ordinary evidence. Men walked on the Moon. Deal with it.

  20. #1370
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,327
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    You have succesfully debunked the Hoaxer evidence and yet your evidence only makes Apollo possible . The Science is good and Empirical, and yet it does not prove that Apollo actualy happened.
    By this logic, we can't prove that there are nuclear weapons. After all, have you ever seen one? Let's ignore the people who say they have, because they could be lying. For that matter, we can't prove that WWII happened. It's just something in the history books, after all. Were you there? Oh, sure, my father said he was in it and my mother has talked about it many times, but my father was probably bought off and my mother merely believed the disinformation campaign. Ignore all the people that supposedly died - they're probably on some island somewhere. Ignore all the people involved, all the resources that were put into it, all the lines of evidence. The best we can say is that it was possible.


    Come on. How much evidence do you need?

    The Debunkers are right on one thing, there is not too much that could not be faked.
    Bunk.

    If it's possible to recreate theatricly then there is a possibility that Apollo did not actualy happen.
    Please show how it would have been possible to recreate it theatrically at the time. Please show how it would have been possible with the technology available at the time to account for all the other evidence. If you can demonstrate that, then you can explain why that would be an easier option than just doing it.

    Actually, forget the "technology at the time" bit. Show how you could do it, period. And do it in complete secrecy.

    The burden of proof is upon the debunkers.

    True concrete evidence would be to see the Apollo Junk left behind , I know why its immpossible to see with a telescope . But supposedly Japan is sending a probe to map the moon down to a centimeter. Does anyone else know about this

    Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
    Given the level of evidence, the extraordinary claim is that it didn't happen, just as if you were arguing against WWII occuring.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  21. #1371
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,641
    Lemme see. What would be extraordinary proof that the D-Day landings happened? Extraordinary proof of the existence of New York City (the city so great they named it twice?) Can you characterize what "extraordinary" proof would be sufficient for you to accept that the Apollo series did land on the Moon?

  22. #1372
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    The burden of proof is upon the debunkers.

    No. There are hundreds of kilos of unfakeable lunar samples, international analysis of the samples,unfakeable tracking of Apollo spacecraft, unfakeable telemetry from devices which had to be set up by hand, tens of thousands of pages of technical documentation and scientific analysis, hundreds of tons of flight hardware, a massive and consistent still and motion imagery record, and the personal experience of thousands of engineers, technicians, scientists, flight crew, and tracking and recovery personnel.

    The burden of proof is most definitely on whoever wishes to contest this record.

    True concrete evidence would be to see the Apollo Junk left behind.

    Really? You say you would accept long-range imagery as "true" evidence?

    Why? Anything you could see from a spacecraft or an interferometric telescope would of necessity go through optoelctronic conversion, digitization, compression, encoding, transmission, decoding, decompression, reconstruction, and further image processing. Why would you believe that over the enormous mountain of evidence already available?

  23. #1373
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,641
    I still do not understand the intense need to hold out some shred of doubt about Apollo. I certainly understand HOW some shred of doubt could always remain; one can never be sure, after all, that one's entire life is not just a rather odd dream.

    But why this doubt on a well-documented historical event, and one that is completely technically and scientifically coherent and plausible? Do we doubt Kitty Hawk? Sure, there isn't that much documentation. But the design of the Wright Flyer can be examined by modern aeronautics experts and declared perfectly capable of flying. Do we doubt Lucky Lindy and his Spirit of 76? Not much (there were some doubters then, but radio contacts were considered pretty definitive. Plus, again, experts agreed the plane was up to the task.) Kon-Tiki and Ra? Scott and Amundsen -- despite whole countries rooting for their favorite side in the race to the pole?

    What is it about the lunar landings that brings out so much fear and doubt in people?

  24. #1374
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by kookbreaker
    Except that it is not fakeable. Even with modern CGI you'd be hard pressed to fake it theatrically. . .
    Today's CGI still can't do it. This IMAX movie, Magnificent Desolation, just came out this fall. The special effects team tried especially hard to get the dust right.

    Dust on the Moon doesn't behave anything like what we're used to on Earth. Here, when you kick soft ground, dirt goes a short distance and dust billows-up in a cloud that may be suspended by the air for more than a minute. Without air, dust doesn't billow at all, nor does it separate from the dirt. It all flies out in a ballistic arc. In 1/6th G, it goes a surprisingly long way.
    Here is a good example of of dust behavior (and an example of bad astronaut behavior )

    In Magnificent Desolation, they couldn't use real dust, because the actors' footsteps would cause it to billow, so they used a hard surface and CGIed the ballistic dirt and the "astronauts'" footprints. It's a very good effort, but to the trained eye the detail still isn't as good as what you see in the Apollo video. Also, in the Apollo 15 landing scene, the amount of dust blown outward from the rocket is nowhere near as much as what you see in any of the 16mm films of Apollo landings. Still, they did better than 2001: A Space Odyssey. In the Kubrick film, the Moon shuttle and Moon bus scenes both show the respective vehicles landing in a cloud of billowing dust.

    Mind you, I'm not saying this to diss either movie; I highly recommend both. I'm merely using them to show that lunar activities are even to this day impossible to convincingly fake.

  25. #1375
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,095
    I'd say we have plenty of evidence, videos, recordings and reading, and yes, Moon rocks. How much more evidence do you need?

    I'd say that, using Occam's razor, we should cut away all unnesecary hypothesis. If you claim that NASA faked all these things theaterically, you gotta have evidence for that thing. Since there is no evidence, the simplest theory that fits the available evidence is that we went to the moon.

    Am I right, fellas?

  26. #1376
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    If it's possible to recreate theatricly then there is a possibility that Apollo did not actualy happen. The burden of proof is upon the debunkers.
    Others have responded to this, but I would echo sts60 on 2 points in particular that have nothing whatsoever to do with a 'theatrical recreation'.

    The rocks and core samples returned from the moon, all 382kg of them (that's 842 pounds for you US folk) have been distributed to scientists from around the world. These rocks show evidence of having been formed in a low-gravity, anhydrous environment. They show unique isotopes through their multi-billion year exposure to unshielded solar radiation. They show 'zap-pits' from micro-meteoritic impacts - impacts impossible on Earth due to our atmosphere. And samples were provided to the Soviet Union in the early 70's PRIOR to the Soviet sample return missions that provided a few grammes of lunar material for comparison. How are these faked?

    Secondly, tracking of the missions was conducted around the world, including from the Soviet Union. This tracking collected telemetry and voice communications from the spacecraft going to, around, on and returning from the moon. The technicians of varying nationalities who did this, including those here in Australia, prided themselves on their abilities in this field - their ability to establish the velocity of the vehicle to within a ms^-1, as well as to track a CM, LM & S-IVB simultaneously. Further, ham operators around the world were able to monitor transmissions for hours at a stretch, impossible if the spacecraft were not a very considerable distance from the Earth. How could this have been faked.

    True concrete evidence would be to see the Apollo Junk left behind , I know why its immpossible to see with a telescope . But supposedly Japan is sending a probe to map the moon down to a centimeter. Does anyone else know about this.
    Why is this more concrete evidence than 32,000 photos, dozens of hours of footage, hundreds of hours of training footage, 382kg of rocks, the observatories who routinely conduct laser-ranging experiments using the reflectors left (perfectly positioned, as opposed to the Soviet ones that were left by unmanned missions), the testimony of the participants, the unique environment demonstrated in the film footage, the dozens of companies that contracted to actually build all of the hardware, the near 500,000 people that participated in the project, not to mention the clear progression in techniques and abilities through from the late 50's to the landings themselves?

    If that doesn't satisfy your needs for proof, then why should images of the equipment left behind?

    Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
    Precisely. Please let us know when you have some.

  27. #1377
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,095
    After the Japan probe would take photos of the Apollo junk, the debunkers would say "These are faked photos. See, it is impossible for blah blah to be blah blah."
    LOL

  28. #1378
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,727
    There are two pieces of footage that I always find utterly convincing - even moreso than the 'Hammer & Feather' experiment by Dave Scott.

    They are both of Charlie Duke - in the first("Duke uses the Self-Recording Penetrometer"), he is seen to fall. In trying to regain his footing, he performs some remarkable acrobatics for someone wearing a spacesuit & with the added mass of the PLSS.

    In the second (the "Boy, is this fun" clip), he talks about heading 'home' to the LM, which is visible in the distance. At first glance, the LM appears relatively close, but the footage shows him going on and on and on (and on), past a perfectly motionless flag, until he finally reaches the LM some considerable time later. Watching that sequence is quite unsettling - the brain is fooled as to the distance, as the usual 'softening' of edges caused by distance here on Earth is completely absent in the vacuum of the moon.

    Both pieces of footage are available on the Project Apollo site in the 'Apollo Multimedia' page.

    (Edited to note: in rebuttal to the pitiful claim that the astronaut could not get in & out of the hatch with the PLSS, watch the mpeg titled "Irwin re-enters the LM at the end of EVA 2".

  29. #1379
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,641
    Hrm. I wonder if one could ask the hoax believers to prove a "theatrical" fake was technically possible.

  30. #1380
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,529
    Quote Originally Posted by nomuse
    Do we doubt Lucky Lindy and his Spirit of 76? Not much (there were some doubters then, but radio contacts were considered pretty definitive. Plus, again, experts agreed the plane was up to the task.)\
    Well, I doubt Lucky Lindy and his Spirit of '76. But that's because the plane was called The Spirit of St. Louis.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Similar Threads

  1. do you support a conference to PROVE the apollo landings were REAL
    By FinalFrontier500 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2011-Jun-19, 03:16 AM
  2. I Will Prove The Mars Landings Were Hoaxed
    By Mars Man in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 2007-Aug-17, 01:59 PM
  3. A way to prove or disprove lunar landings
    By Goody in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-01, 08:56 PM
  4. Hoaxed Moon landings?
    By xXxDarkSkyNitexzxXx in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2004-Aug-27, 09:15 AM
  5. Some small facts which help prove the moon landings.
    By jrkeller in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2003-Oct-12, 11:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: